TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with the persons and concerns related to Sujana Group of companies on 7th October, 2004. Consequent to the search, notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued. In response, returns of income for A.Ys. 1999- 2000 to 2003-04 and A.Y. 2005-06 were filed on 13.12.2006 declaring incomes as under: A.Y. Income returned (Rs.) 1999-00 2,25,000 2000-01 1,95,400 2001-02 1,95,400 2002-03 1,90,400 2003-04 1,85,400 2004-05 9,22,000 2005-06 9,54,040 3.1 During the course of search and seizure operation, documents identified as A/PVR/1 to A/PVR/7 were seized from the residence of the assessee. These seized documents along with a document identified as A/SUIL/100 seized from the premises of M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Ltd., have been considered by the Assessing Officer for computing undisclosed income in the same of the assessee. During the course of search and post search investigations, statements under oath were recorded. The statements were recorded on 7.10.2004 and 1.12.2004 u/s. 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and subsequently on 14.2.2004 u/s. 131 of the Act. 3.2 On the basis of seized documents A/PVR/1 to A/PV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question Nos. 13 to 15 are extracted as under: Q. No. 13 In the course of the search at your residential premises, certain documents have been found and the same details have been inventoried. Your attention is invited to the documents found and inventoried as Annexure A/PVR/7 (45 loose sheets). Please go through this bundle and explain the transactions recorded on each of these sheets: Answer Sheet Nos. 39 to 45, these sheets contain rough calculations of the amounts mobilised by me on behalf of Sujana Group of companies towards share application money. The details in these sheets are in my own hand writing. I must have mobilised approximately a crore of rupees for and on behalf of Sujana Group of companies. I shall compile the actual details of the funds mobilised towards share application money and also towards unsecured loans and hand loans and submit the list by 11.10.2004. Q. No. 14 Your attention is again invited to the transactions noted on sheet Nos. 35, 33, 29, 27, 2, 20, 19, 15, 14, 11, 10, 8, 4 and 3 which contain the transactions marked against your name (VR1, VR2, VR & PVRR). Please explain the transactions marked against your name in these she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of share capital. However, the assessee was never able to establish his claim that the money mobilised as narrated in A/PVR/5 to A/PVR/7 relates to Sujana group or particular persons/concerns of Sujana group and the money was on account of share capital. Neither during the course of search or post search investigations or assessment proceedings, details or evidences were furnished to support the claim that the transactions are in the nature of share capital mobilisation and for Sujana Group of companies. Accordingly, the documents seized from the assessee are presumed to belong to him and his efforts to explain away the transactions therein during the course of assessment proceedings and earlier have miserably failed. 3.9 The Assessing Officer has made substantial addition for A.Ys. 1999-2000 to 2001-02 on the basis of seized documents A/PVR/1 to A/PVR/4. However, nowhere in the assessment order the entries have been discussed or narrated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had not given the basis for arriving at the figures taken by him for addition. It has not been explained how the figures have been arrived at. Show-cause letters or questionnaire issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in place of Rs. 36 lakhs, Rs. 105 lakhs and Rs. 203 lakhs for the A.Ys. 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. For A.Y. 2002-03 he directed to accept Rs. 9.04 lakhs. 3.13 Regarding computation of peak credit relating to A.Y. 2002-03 and A.Y. 2005-06, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee was not able to establish the claim with details and evidences. Though it was stated that transactions relate to Sujana Group. Further M/s. Sujana Group has also not confirmed the submissions of the assessee. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had added interest twice to a substantial extent. However, on the basis of submissions made by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings had given a conclusion that the amount mentioned in the seized material has "principals" has been considered as assessee's own funds and, therefore, no addition should be made on account of interest payment. As per the assessee's own submissions filed before the learned CIT(A), the peak credit of the amount mentioned as per seized material up to 31.10.2001 arrived at Rs. 15,09,50,605. However, the peak credit as on 1.7.2004 is Rs. 15,35,29,936. He accordingly added the peak credit of Rs. 15,09,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee at Rs. 2,43,21,090 and levied penalty of Rs. 73,83,000. For the A.Y. 2003-04, the assessee offered negative peak cash balance of Rs. 1,84,47,285, the Assessing Officer considered the same to levy penalty of Rs. 58,11,000. For the A.Y. 2005-06 unexplained peak cash credit was arrived at by the CIT(A) at Rs. 25,79,321 and the Assessing Officer considered the same for levying penalty at Rs. 8,75,000. 4.1 The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions sustained by the appellate authorities and accepted by the assessee on reason that the assessee does not want to prolong the litigation and that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Thus, the CIT(A) substituted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by some new figures on the basis of certain seized material marked as A/PVR/5 to A/PVR/7. On the same basis the Tribunal deleted certain additions and reduced the unexplained income of the assessee. According to the learned counsel for the assessee there is no conclusive evidence to show that the assessee has actually concealed the income. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a delib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 ITR 150 (AT)] wherein it was held that since assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings were separate and distinct, the finding in the assessment proceedings could not be regarded as conclusive for the purposes of penalty proceedings and could not be taken as conclusive for the purpose of holding the assessee liable for concealment and imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since neither of the two events, i.e., signing of contract between the DTC and DMIL or placement of order by DTC on DMIL for the supply of buses had taken place during the year under consideration, the assessee could reasonably claim that no fees had become payable to the assessee for the year under consideration and there was no accrual of income on account of such fees. The claim of the assessee was based on an interpretation given to the relevant clauses and having been accepted by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment, the interpretation given by the assessee was a possible one. Moreover, all the relevant particulars relating to the said claim were duly furnished by the assessee along with its return of income including a copy of the memorandum of understanding. The claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- 6 2004-05 9,22,000/- 7 2005-06 9,54,040/- Later the Assessing Officer made the additions. The assessee at various stages offered income for various assessment years at Rs.2,86,83,440/-. 6. The Learned Departmental Representative has submitted that since the assessee was not able to explain the transactions as they are very old and he came up with an offer on search of documents seized during the course of search and sworn statement recorded, suggested the concealment of income. He further submitted that the additions were not offered on voluntary basis; rather the assessee was non cooperative during the search as well as during the assessment proceedings. There was a deliberate attempt to conceal the income of the unaccounted transactions which was within the personal knowledge of the assessee and he had attempted to maintain of such records for his personal memory. Because of only search actions, these transactions came to light and this case is fit to confirm the penalty. He relied on the judgement in the case of Union of India & Others Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Others (306 ITR 277) (SC). 7. We have heard bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer has made additions towards principle and interest, the CIT(A) deleted certain additions there after substituted some other additions, Tribunal also deleted certain additions which is evident from the below mentioned Table: S..N Assessment year Return filed by the assessee Assessed by the Assessing Officer Determined by the CIT(A) Final income determined by Tribunal order 1 1999-2000 1,95,400 10,695,400 4.71 lakhs No appeal 2 2000-2001 1,95,400 210.92 lakhs 48.21 lakhs 40.21 lakhs 3 2002-2003 190.4 lakhs 633.76 lakhs 834.78 lakhs 243.21 lakhs 4 2003-2004 1.85 lakhs 666.13 lakhs 186.33 lakhs No appeal 5 2004-05 No appeal 6 2005-06 9.54 lakhs 594.11 lakhs 43.94 lakhs 35.33 lakhs The above table shows that there is no conclusive evidence while determining the income by the lower authorities for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)( c). The Assessing Officer is required to satisfy himself about the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It gives discretion to the Assessing Of....